being big boys about free speesh

(lods of spelling mistakes cos i typed this up in vim)

whenever i tackle any kind of political issue at all i always first consider- is this one of these issues where my personal opinions matter?

this may sound an odd question given politics is dictated by personal opinion, but the way i see it, to come to conclusions that will properly allow freedom for everyone- you need to kina try and drop whatever it is that you your self believe, as to sympathise with the opinions of others,

now of course, this is provided that you want people to have freedoms, you might notreally care for anyones freedom at all, or perhaps you are selective about who should have freedom, however a lot of people who claim to care about freedoms and rights (and likley do infact care about freedoms and right) seem unaware of this prerequsite and end up coming to idealogicaly incoherent conclusions on matters of rights, freedoms, bodily autonmy, etc.

for instance- lets hop out of abstract political discussion to temporarily consider a hypothetical.

lets say tom is considering whether or not comminists should be allowed to express their ideas publicly. now tom respects freedom, (or tries his best to) and believes in the general idea that people should have rights- but tom is idealogicaly disposed to disagreeing with comminists- in his opinion comminists are evil and misguided. thusly tom concludes that comminists should be banned from discussing politics, even though he would like to support freedom and rights and stuff.

so, what went wrong?

tom never stopped to consider that perhaps his opinions are not relavent in a discorse regarding the abilities of others to express opinions, tom did not stop to consider that he disagrees with the commies when they tell him that hes opinions should be banned.

when when a person/ groups right to freedoms in whitchever domian is being considered- for it to be worthy of curtailing it MUST be infringing on the right of another person/group.

tom disagreeing with comminists is not a good enough reason for their speech to disallowed. think of it like this- when weighing rights, only other rights shall be weights against each other. opinions shall not enter the domain of rights, hurt feeling shall not enter the domain of rights- this is a good saftey mesure to ensure we dont end up in a distopian hell, because humans are emotionally motivatey (and often not very bright) and regardless of how much of a mega autismo you are you are not immune.

now since i have laid out the ettiquite of arguing rights, the real meat and bones of the issues lies in what you even consider as a right, to be honest, like all things set up by man- a right is an abstract concept that means absoulutley nowt and can be whatever you want

but heres a criterium

-a right must not contradict another right -a right must not coerce an individual into action or inaction unless their action/inaction is infringing on anothers rights -a right must be idealogically unbaised

anyhow, if we take these simple rules and apply it to some well known human rights we get some interesting results ...

1. freedom of religion- this right scores a 10/10, provided said religion does not include infringing on others rights this is a solid and sensible right- it is idealogically unbaised- allowing for all groups regardless of tribe or sect to have this right, there is no implied coersion- ie that one must go along and encourage/ particapate in any of these religion, this is simply a gaurentee that one may practice their fath unbothered.

2. freedom of speech 10/10- there is no infringmemt on other rights and does not include coersion- no one is made to listen to the person talkin, or to agree with them- it simply and plainly ensures the speakers right to speak of their own accord, it also meets the criteria for being idealogically unbaised as it does not discriminate based on race/sex/other arbitrary group or the content of the speech

3. the right to an education ?/10- depending on the intent with witch this phrase is expressed this right is borderline. in such cases that it simply means that a person shall not denied education it works out, but in use cases where the implication is that one must be provided education it fails as coersion, this is also the case for a lot of simalarlly worded rights,,,

all in all i believe this article was important to type out, since i have been noticing how in recent times is has become fair game for opinion to be entered into the battle ground of rights. especially a big target nowadays is the right to free speech.

it in in the nature of the right that it is inflammatory, as it is a metaphorical culmination of all the things you both do and dont agree with. whenever someone calls you a name, debates you on your political stances, tells you somthing you shouldnt have liked to have heard, the right to free speech is standing there with a big ol sword and shield protecting the person that just behaved so horribly distastefuly towards you.

however there is a side to free speech that people often forget, the freedom of speech that stands by your side whenever you speak your mind, whenever you stand up for your self, whenever you speak against the prevailing opinion.

it is important not to forget the kind face of free speech, as its too important of an ally to lose- and not only is it an ally to a particular group, but rather to all of us.

when considering the value of a right, we must be able to prove coersion or infringmemt of another right. sadly there is no right to not have to hear things you do not want to and therefore freedom of speech is an undenaiable right that all individuals/groups are entitled to.

i write here asking the reader to deeply regard their position on this issue and consider the logical conclusion of biased rights shall we diallow religious groups we dislike from practicing?
no?
then why disallow their speech.

~kindly the author, with regards from the cyberdiamention